The U.S.-China relationship and the economic and security dynamics of the Indo-Pacific are riddled with contradictions that raise questions about both the Chinese and American policies. How this drama plays out will have no small impact on a global and regional system in transition looking out to 2025.

The rearmament program, now underway in the U.S., may lead to a new round of “militarization of international relations” and a new arms race between Russia, the United States, and probably China at a time when the strategic arms limitation regime is crumbling.

There has again emerged an area of instability and armed conflict (Ukraine) on Poland’s borders. Its relations with neighbors that are vital for its national security and economic development (Russia, Germany, and the European Union as a whole) are ruined again.

It is worth recalling that, back in May 2014, the Verkhovna Rada recognized the need to prioritize reconciliation. Adopted just five days before the presidential elections, had this policy actually been implemented, Ukraine’s subsequent history might have been very different.

Within the framework of “civilizational realism” existing contradictions between Russia and the West could be solved by reaching an agreement with the “civilizational leaders” of the Euro-Atlantic region to create a demilitarized buffer zone made up of limitrophe Eastern European states.

The year 2019 is a year of landmark anniversaries: a centenary of the Versailles-Washington world order; the 90th anniversary of the Great Depression, which reverberated throughout the 20th century; the 80th anniversary of World War II; the 70th anniversary of the nuclear parity and NATO, the start of the Cold War confrontation; the 40th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Iran; the 30th anniversary of changes in Eastern Europe; and the 20th anniversary of NATO’s war against Yugoslavia.

Since August 2017, legislation allowing the imposition of a range of new sanctions against Russia has been passed by US lawmakers. Although not all this legislation has thus far been implemented by the president, Donald Trump, the mere threat of more draconian economic sanctions from the US created considerable uncertainty in Russia.

Historical arguments are heavily used by both Ukraine and Russia in pursuing their political goals at the national and international levels. The current state of relations between the two countries predetermines further instrumental use and misuse of history for the purposes of propaganda and hybrid war.

The Far East development strategy should focus on building an area of innovative resource-based economy. The production of innovative resource-intensive goods and services with a focus on the growing Asian markets running low on natural resources could be an attractive niche for the Russian Far East to take and succeed in.

The history of sanctions against Iran deserves close analysis in light of the growing sanctions pressure on Russia. Although Iran and Russia are different countries facing different sanctions paradigms, Iran’s experience is meaningful if only because both countries have to contend with US sanction law.

The Belt and Road Initiative, originally aimed at domestic economic development, has turned into an umbrella bringing together China’s ambitious projects to shape a new order in Eurasia, which directly influences Europe.

Neither Ukraine nor Syria has eased psychological tension so far. The United States and partly Russia do not think they have reached the dangerous point. Apparently they still need a bigger crisis to finally settle their issues.

The Ukrainian crisis is just ushering in a series of conflicts amid which a polycentric system of international relations will form. An effective multilateral mechanism must be created for preventing and settling crises in Europe and North Eurasia.

Tendencies will continue—a geopolitical shift towards Eurasia and the Asia Pacific Region; symbolic ‘sovereignization’ of Russia and its further distancing from the U.S. and Europe; and the erosion of a foreign policy consensus. The fourth edition of Putin’s foreign policy will most likely differ significantly from the previous three.

Proceeding from their current interests, more powerful countries often ignore the fact that, as a rule, there is no right or wrong party in domestic conflicts and civil wars; indeed, the responsibility often lies with both sides.

Relations between Russia and the United States are acquiring a new quality. Moscow and Washington can cooperate on certain individual issues, but strategically they are now on their own—certainly not in the same boat.

There is a great risk of getting mired in counterproductive discussions about the frontiers of the European model of historical development. References to the history of one region or another or one nation or another as “European” or “non-European” are unscrupulously used today inside the EU itself and along its periphery when it comes to discussing whether the region or nation deserves to be a member of a united Europe.

In the eyes of many, the possession of the nuclear bomb is a symbol of special military-political might and of belonging to a select group. The experience of the difficult negotiations with Ukraine, in the course of which Kiev was persuaded—in the long last—to give up the nuclear arsenal it had inherited from the U.S.S.R., can be of use to those who now have to address similar problems with other countries.

Washington’s unilateral actions on the global stage, far from yielding positive results in Afghanistan and Iraq, run counter to the objective processes in the international economy and politics. Since the end of the Cold War, the world has been leaning towards a multipolar power structure, and even the world’s mightiest nation is unable to reverse this trend.

In 100 years since the Revolution of 1917, it continues to have impact on the Russian society. Divergent assessments of the Revolution and different approaches to its commemoration have been sparking off heated debates on Russia’s past and future that emphasize the need to reconcile different narratives.

Yet again, in the United States, large parts of the government are facing shutdown because of deadlock in the US Senate – the only country in the developed world where this kind of thing happens. How on earth has a country which for so long was a model for democracy, good government and modernity in general got itself into this mess?

Donald Trump’s presidency began a year ago with widespread expectations of improvement in U.S.-Russian relations; there was even loose talk of a grand bargain. His first year in office ends, however, with relations in worse shape than he found them.

Since around 2017–2018, the world has been living through a period of progressive erosion, or collapse, of international orders inherited from the past. With the election of Donald Trump and the rapid increase of US containment of Russia and China—which is both a consequence of this gradual erosion and also represents deep internal and international contradictions—this process entered its apogee.

The announcement of the US pullout from Syria was received with caution in Moscow. Besides the security and political challenges it may bring about, the Trump decision could mean the end of a practical, relatively constructive US-Russian approach to conflict at flashpoints.

Having emerged from centuries of bloodshed to become the poster child for integration and collaboration, Europe has a distinct service to offer the rest of the world. With the international order coming apart and populist nationalism on the rise, now is the time for the European Union to show leadership, both at home and abroad.

Summing up the results of 2018, one is tempted to lay emphasis on a number of major events and trends. However, that carries the risk of neglecting systemic issues that generate the diversity of individual phenomena. The understanding of these issues provides us with an analytical ability that helps us attribute numerous events to a more or less understandable model.

Chinese geoeconomics is making a great leap forward to adjust to rapid technological developments and a changing international distribution of power. The world is entering a new industrial revolution that further decouples the relationship between capital and labour, which incentivises Beijing to abandon its reliance on low-wage competitiveness and instead take the lead in developing high-tech strategic industries with its digital Silk Road.

Almost 35 years ago, US President Ronald Reagan settled down in the White House to watch the latest Hollywood blockbuster WarGames as part of his regular Sunday film night. The film, starring a young Matthew Broderick, depicted a teenage computer hacker accidentally breaking into top-secret Pentagon supercomputers that controlled US nuclear weapons.